Tour de Lab September 1st

Open house will offer peeks at Central City in Motion projects

Posted by on July 22nd, 2019 at 12:40 pm

PBOT will share the latest designs for the NW Flanders bikeway and several other Central City in Motion projects at the event.

Plans only matter if the projects within them get built. That’s a mantra we’re all too familiar with.

If you’re itching to see the projects in the Central City in Motion plan see the light of day, don’t miss the open house on Tuesday night. The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) will host the event at the White Stag Building (70 NW Couch) in Old Town between 5:00 and 7:00 pm. TriMet and city staff will be on hand to explain some of the projects in the queue.

Before and after on NW Everett

Among them are a new bus-only lane on NW Everett that will create better transit service between Broadway and the Steel Bridge. PBOT will start work on this project in just a few weeks. Unlike SW 4th and Madison, this new lane isn’t designed as a shared space for bicycle and bus riders. Instead it simply replaces an existing lane used by drivers and maintains auto parking lanes on both sides of the street. In fact, it appears that the project will remove existing sharrows and a bike lane that connects to the existing protected bikeway on NW Naito Parkway.

Advertisement


PBOT plans to widen the bike lanes on the Burnside Bridge and add a bus-only lane later this year.

PBOT likely sees the new NW Flanders bikeway (one block north) as the main route for bicycle users. Construction on that project is set to start next summer and they’ll have more details on it at tomorrow’s open house.

Other exciting projects you can learn more about at the event are the Burnside Street bus and bike lane project (first phase coming this fall) and a project that will create a protected bike lane on SW 4th between Salmon and Ankeny (construction in 2020).

More details on tomorrow’s open house on the BikePortland calendar.

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org

Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.

BikePortland needs your support.

Please support BikePortland.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

30 Comments
  • Avatar
    David Hampsten July 22, 2019 at 1:03 pm

    Lovely blank walls where building storefronts should be, much like downtown Houston. Clearly PBOT needs some architects on its staff.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Carrie July 22, 2019 at 1:06 pm

    Do we take away a car travel lane when we build a new road or bridge nearby? We sure don’t. But we can take away a bike travel lane (and leave room for car storage)? Why can’t our planners see the irony and/or hypocrisy?

    Recommended Thumb up 18

    • Avatar
      David Hampsten July 22, 2019 at 1:19 pm

      Now that I’m looking closely at the diagram, why are cars even allowed to park there, on the left-most side (right side on the picture)? Clearly there’s no car lane, so they are going to have to cross the retro bike lane as they slowly parallel park. I can already see the UPS and FedEx trucks parked in the middle of that bike lane, along with all the robot delivery units. And of course a person camping just behind the planter.

      Recommended Thumb up 10

  • Avatar
    David Hampsten July 22, 2019 at 1:12 pm

    It looks like PBOT is now fully staffed with recruits from the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Why are there no protected intersections? I thought with Nick Falbo working at PBOT that every intersection would have protected pedestrian crossings at a minimum, but instead they show 1990s curb extensions, 1970s bike lanes, and the longest possible pedestrian crossings. It’s about as un-walkable and as pedestrian-hostile environment as any city in North Carolina, which isn’t good. And why are there no trees on the Burnside median? Are we worried that cars might have to slow down, not be able to go 20 mph over the posted speed limit?

    This is awful.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

  • Avatar
    Matt July 22, 2019 at 1:30 pm

    So, legal wrong-side-of-the-street parking? That’s just fudging great. I give it less than a month before a cyclist gets hit by a driver blindly pulling out of their parking spot.

    Recommended Thumb up 14

    • Avatar
      Julie H. July 22, 2019 at 10:35 pm

      Email Project Manager Scott Cohen, scott.cohen@portlandoregon.gov, about this. (He’s been quite responsive when I’ve reached out about things on Rosa Parks Way.) It could be terrible drawings, or it could be some really bad planning. Either way, everything is still in proposal state so asking for improvements & clarification can make a difference!

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Avatar
      maccoinnich July 23, 2019 at 3:46 pm

      In many other countries there’s no concept of a right and wrong side/direction of the street to park. As as example, check out this street in Amsterdam, where cars are parked facing both directions, on both sides of the street: https://goo.gl/maps/sQPtTwMzLUNsUcGw6

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Avatar
    Adam July 22, 2019 at 2:56 pm

    Why are they removing the existing sharrows/bikelane on Everett in a few weeks, yet not starting work on the NW Flanders bikeway for another year?

    Recommended Thumb up 17

    • Avatar
      Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) July 22, 2019 at 3:16 pm

      Great question. We’ll find out at the open house.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Avatar
      maccoinnich July 23, 2019 at 12:21 am

      Based on streetview from 2017, the sharrows on Everett don’t start until east of NW 2nd Ave, and are in the rightmost lane. At that point the bus lane will be the center lane, which is the through lane leading onto the Steel Bridge. I don’t believe there are any sharrows or bike lanes being removed.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Avatar
    mh July 22, 2019 at 3:29 pm

    Your tax dollars at work, your wishes and needs run over by thousands of SUVs.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Avatar
    Rain Panther July 22, 2019 at 3:41 pm

    So, if I’m driving and want to park on the left side, all I have to do is veer head on into the oncoming bike lane? Is this for real?

    Recommended Thumb up 11

    • Avatar
      Rain Panther July 22, 2019 at 3:42 pm

      Seriously, someone remind me – what’s that double yellow line for?

      Recommended Thumb up 9

  • Avatar
    Buzz July 22, 2019 at 4:34 pm

    How can removing the bike lane and sharrows from West Everett be considered an ‘improvement’?

    And that NW Flanders drawing is just, like wow, someone is actually being hired and paid to produce designs like this? Really?

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Avatar
    Social Engineer July 22, 2019 at 5:21 pm

    Everyone complaining about the contraflow bicycle lane concept shown in the first image should make a field trip to NW 20th and Everett. This diverter was installed a few weeks ago and there doesn’t seem to be any problems with it so far, but time will tell. This design has been used in other cities and will soon become more prevalent here based on a combination of the Fire Bureau demanding 20 feet of clear width at all times for their trucks and the lack of any political will to remove parking – especially metered spaces.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Avatar
      Buzz July 22, 2019 at 8:40 pm

      So, the fire bureau wants clear passage, the sewer bureau wants double-wide drainage grates, the transportation bureau doesn’t want to lose any parking revenue, the transit bureau wants their own unshared bus-only lanes, the pedestrians want sidewalks, curb ramps and shorter crossing distances, and the motorists want no reduction in travel lanes. That leaves precious little space left for cyclists and this situation has only gotten worse in the past 20 – 30 years, not better. I know it plays well with readers of this blog, but BikePortland is tilting at windmills if they think otherwise, and Jonathan might as well just hang it up if he thinks cyclists will be realistically accommodated in this scenario!

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Avatar
        maccoinnich July 23, 2019 at 12:09 am

        That block of NW 20th was two-way for cars. Now it’s one way for cars and two-way for cyclists. This isn’t good evidence for you assertion that things are getting worse, not better.

        Recommended Thumb up 9

      • Avatar
        ContraFlowBikeLane July 23, 2019 at 9:30 am

        Have you seen it in action? This was, in fact, a big upgrade for cyclists AND pedestrians in the area. It has completely calmed the intersection and that block, and those 10 or so cars parked facing the bike lane don’t move often. There are far bigger things to complain about. In removing an auto lane, this area has been substantially calmed.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Avatar
      soren July 23, 2019 at 3:24 pm

      “Everyone complaining about the contraflow bicycle lane”

      I looked through this thread and could not find a single person complaining about the contraflow bicycle lane.

      People were complaining about a design that would require car/truck traffic to cross double yellow lines, drive the wrong way in a bike lane, and park the wrong direction on a roadway (three distinct violations of Oregon traffic law). And, of course, this design is not supported by NACTO design guidelines for contraflow bike lanes.

      https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/bike-lanes/contra-flow-bike-lanes/

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Avatar
        Social Engineer July 23, 2019 at 3:56 pm

        And, of course, there is this language from that very NACTO link, which is far from “not supporting” this design.

        “Special consideration should be given before implementing contra-flow bike lanes adjacent to parking. Cars entering and exiting the parking lane will be maneuvering head-on with oncoming bicyclists, introducing an increased speed differential and unfamiliar traffic operations. The driver of a vehicle parked adjacent to a contra-flow lane will have reduced visibility of oncoming bicyclists when compared to parking adjacent to a with-flow bike lane. Increased bike lane width paired with parking-side buffer striping may be used to increase maneuvering space and sight distance. Most existing installations use a double yellow line to separate the contra-flow bicycle lane, however local ordinance may prohibit parking in the opposite direction of the contra-flow travel lane. A dashed yellow line, or dashed white line may also used to separate the contra-flow bicycle lane. Local urban practitioners should use best engineering judgment to determine which strategy to implement.”

        Looks like PBOT is doing exactly what NACTO calls for to improve the safety of this design.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Avatar
          maccoinnich July 23, 2019 at 4:00 pm

          lol @ reading the link

          Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Avatar
          soren July 23, 2019 at 5:53 pm

          It’s very interesting how you spent so much time reading through the NACTO design guideline but somehow missed the guideline that directly addresses my comment:

          WHEN CONFIGURED WITHOUT PARKING, a solid double yellow lane line marking should be used to separate opposing motor vehicle travel lanes from the contraflow bicycle lane

          PS: I’ve noticed that you tend to defend PBOT alot here. Do you work for PBOT or receive money from contracts with PBOT?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Social Engineer July 23, 2019 at 7:27 pm

            Nope…just an informed citizen. Thanks for the baseless accusation though!

            Recommended Thumb up 3

          • Avatar
            maccoinnich July 24, 2019 at 9:24 am

            How do you think the text you’ve quoted supports your position?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              soren July 24, 2019 at 10:52 am

              My post was laser focused on the fact that PBOT’s design violates Oregon law:

              People were complaining about a design that would require car/truck traffic to CROSS DOUBLE YELLOW LINES

              https://bikeportland.org/2019/07/22/open-house-will-offer-peeks-at-central-city-in-motion-projects-302651#comment-7134341

              I guess you did not notice the clause which highlights the fact that solid yellow lines are recommended for no-parking facilities (and dotted or white lines for non-parking facilities where the yellow line is illegal):

              When configured without parking, a solid double yellow lane line marking should be used

              https://bikeportland.org/2019/07/22/open-house-will-offer-peeks-at-central-city-in-motion-projects-302651#comment-7134419

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                maccoinnich July 24, 2019 at 10:58 am

                Maybe you’re new to reading, but “when configured without parking, a solid double yellow lane line marking should be used” does not mean “when configured with parking, a solid double yellow lane line marking should not be used”. If you click on the link you yourself provided, you’ll see that the guidance for contra-flow bike lanes adjacent to parking includes an illustration… with a double yellow line.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                soren July 24, 2019 at 11:39 am

                My original post was not about “parking” at all. My explicit concern was the PBOT is building a facility that encourages people driving to break laws in the context of a bike facility. As far as I can tell that is also a major concern of many of those posting criticism on this thread.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                maccoinnich July 24, 2019 at 11:58 am

                Your original post included an assertion that wasn’t correct, and a link to a page whose contents you clearly hadn’t bothered to read.

                With that context, I’m going to trust that the professionals working on these projects have spent more time studying the relevant laws than you have.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Avatar
        Buzz July 24, 2019 at 9:13 am

        Cyclists needn’t worry, it’s just more ‘experimental’ BS from PBOT, NACTO be damned! What’s not to like about that?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    alex July 23, 2019 at 5:00 pm

    looking forward to the #1 burnside upgrades. curious though if buses will make stops in their dedicated lanes or if we will still be playing leapfrog up e burnside..

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar